SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2004 Supreme(Raj) 430

N.N.MATHUR
Jeevan Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent


Advocates:
Appearance :
Pradeep Shah, Advocate for the Appellant
D.D. Kalla, Public Prosecutor for the Respondents

Judgment

N.N. Mathur, J.-I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order dated 15-7-2000, whereby learned CJM, Udaipur has returned Final Report No. 202/99 given in FIR Case No. 307/1999, Police Station, Surajpole.

2. It appears that the SHO, Police Station, Surajpole forwarded the final report in FIR Case No. 307/1999 to the Court of learned CJM, Udaipur. However on 15-7-2000, the SHO, Police Station, Surajpole submitted an application to the effect that the final report be returned to him as the same was summoned by the Superintendent of Police, Udaipur. The learned Judge straightway granted the application and returned the final report. It is submitted by the learned counsel that once the final report has been submitted by the police, the same cannot be returned simply on the request of the Investigating Officer for perusal by the higher police authority.

3. I find substancein the contention raised by the learned counsel. It is well settled position of law that even after the conclusion of the investigation pursuant to filing of FIR and submission of report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., the officer in-charge of the police station comes across any




Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top